j2hyde wrote:I want to know why people get so uppity about what is probably the most benign fishing program around (Japanese whaling) when almost every other form of fishing is vastly more damaging to fish stocks?

philstar wrote:not in Australia its not, they can prosecute people for whaling out side of Australian waters ( if any of the whalers set foot in Australia)

Incorrect. Outside Aust waters = no jurisdiction.

they can have a law that governs what people do out side there territory, they have one that allows people to be prosecuted for kiddy sex trips to Bangkok, and they have another that allows people to be prosecuted for whaling.

jurisdiction = (law) the right and power to interpret and apply the law. the right (An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature) can be given by law, that leave power which they have "if any of the whalers set foot in Australia" .

philstar wrote:not in Australia its not, they can prosecute people for whaling out side of Australian waters ( if any of the whalers set foot in Australia)

Incorrect. Outside Aust waters = no jurisdiction.

they can have a law that governs what people do out side there territory, they have one that allows people to be prosecuted for kiddy sex trips to Bangkok, and they have another that allows people to be prosecuted for whaling.

jurisdiction = (law) the right and power to interpret and apply the law. the right (An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature) can be given by law, that leave power which they have "if any of the whalers set foot in Australia" .

Slightly more complicated especially in a common law country like Aussie, there's authority to suggest that the act that's being sanctioned against needs to have an effect in the jurisdiction, what constitutes an effect is in disagreement.

Most extra-territorial laws (like our genocide act whadevaitscalled) need to have an international law component, that's what the Aussies are talking about legal action wise, even then it's dubious and will probably fail in the ICJ.

CrustyMTB wrote:Also Pete Bethune is a Pirate, and stands a real chance of getting torn up by the Japanese legal system, If this was a publicity stunt it may well backfire in a massive clusterfucking fashion.

It just seems they have drifted away from the big picture of killing a species to extintion which was addressed 20 years ago by people doing genuine stuff with a passion. Now it's rich people donating 3 millon dollar boats to harrass a couple of fishing boats and then drag it through the lawyers.

Fraser wrote:It just seems they have drifted away from the big picture of killing a species to extintion which was addressed 20 years ago by people doing genuine stuff with a passion. Now it's rich people donating 3 millon dollar boats to harrass a couple of fishing boats and then drag it through the lawyers.

yea,pretty much how the basic concept of how people protesting works....benefactors provide resources to assist on the continuation of actions to highlight what they consider to be wrong....

certainly protest actions happened 20+ years ago, but it didn't make the issue go away...

same as we still have racism in the world yet South Africa no longer has national policy to enforce it......so does that mean we did our job back in the 80's protesting the regime? and we should all now stop protesting or being concerned about racism?